House admonishes Wilson for his 'You lie' outburst, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 15-9-2009 @ 05:52 PM by octotom
WASHINGTON – The House has voted to admonish Rep. Joe Wilson over his "You lie" outburst to President Barack Obama during the president's health care speech to Congress last week.

The 240-179 vote on the resolution of disapproval reflected the sharp partisan divide over the issue. Democrats insisted that the South Carolina Republican take responsibility for what they said was a serious breach of decorum. Republicans characterized the vote as a political stunt.

Wilson himself would not back down on his position that he owed the House no apology. Surrounded by Republican supporters, Wilson said Obama had "graciously accepted my apology and the issue is over."


Source

I don't know exactly what it means, but I'm sure that it's not going to bode well for Rep. Wilson, at least for his tenure in the House. It's interesting though, that apparently free speech stops at the doors to the Capitol. Whether or not you think that something is proper, we should all, especially a politician, be able to say how we feel (as long as it doesn't endanger someone of course). That's a beauty of America.

I think this here is funny. It's what section 370 of the House rules says can and can't be said:

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”


Source

It might just be me, but if I was the president, I would think having anything surrounding me called a disgrace is a little worse than being called a liar. Perhaps Wilson should've called Obama's speech a disgrace instead?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[edit on 9/15/2009 by octotom]


reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 06:03 PM by schrodingers dog
reply to post by octotom



While it is a pretty sad and symbolic state of affairs when representatives mistake a presidential address for the set of Jerry Springer ...

... my irony index just exploded at the thought of no good lying bastard politicians admonishing one of theirs for yelling "liar!"

Sheesh ...



reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 06:08 PM by octotom
reply to post by Aggie Man



Thanks for the definition. I guess in the end, it's not as bad as it sounds. Unless the House has attached a third meaning to it.

So, 179 of them did not think that it was proper to give a gentle warning? That would be laughable if these fools didn't run our country.

If the 179 that voted no didn't find anything wrong with what he did, why vote to give him a gentle warning?


reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 06:26 PM by digger2381
reply to post by Aggie Man



It's not that they didn't find anything wrong with it, there was plenty of comments from both sides of the aisle regarding it post speech. Almost completely against it.

They voted against it because this was a partisan issue to try and keep dragging it on after Obama has already accepted the apology and moved on. It is a non issue that was not worthy of the time taken to hold this vote. That is why the majority of Republicans were against it.

He refused to apologize a second time after his first was accepted. Whats wrong with that? It is unnecessary and only serves to drag it out instead of moving on. Just another ploy by the Dems to keep the focus on those horrible Republicans who will do anything to spite Obama.


reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 06:30 PM by Aggie Man
reply to post by digger2381



Oh well, it passed anyway. Oh the power of numbers!



reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 06:32 PM by greeneyedleo
Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to
post by digger2381



Oh well, it passed anyway. Oh the power of numbers!


Oh the power of numbers and oh the power of too much time on their hands and obviously nothing better to do!

to our elected "representatives"


reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 06:41 PM by Beefcake
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to
post by digger2381



Oh well, it passed anyway. Oh the power of numbers!


Oh the power of numbers and oh the power of too much time on their hands and obviously nothing better to do!

to our elected "representatives"


Ditto. I thought i was the only one to read this so far and think "Oh my god they actually had a vote?"

With all the pressing issues this country faces and they vote on this. An example of how petty and useless our gov't is.


reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 06:44 PM by Wimbly
reply to post by schrodingers dog



Can you explain why the MSM was not outraged when Democrats boo'd Bush in the State of the Union speech? Can you explain the lack of outrage when Harry Reid called Bush a "loser" in the senate? Of course not, because the MSM manipulates the outrage in all of you.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^